The Core i5-13600K is the most affordable model in Intel's new Raptor Lake range. Its predecessor, the 12600K was a personal favorite of ours, so we are expecting this to be a real winner.
The Core i5-13600K is the most affordable model in Intel's new Raptor Lake range. Its predecessor, the 12600K was a personal favorite of ours, so we are expecting this to be a real winner.
Finally a great budget processor for everybody.
Intel surprised us and managed to offer a processor which please users not just investors.
What I like most of Intel 13th gen processors is the better price than AMD Zen4.
It seems that nowadays AMD has a worse financial team than Intel.
Thank you for the review, and indeed, AMD need to cut prices and retire financial team which came with those milking prices especially for MB.
Depending on where one lives, there's not much between them.7600X with a decent B650 motherboard is even better value right?
It gets very messy, very quickly, when multiple colours are used to track different vendors/models. I experimented with alternating AMD/Intel colours and found it to be pretty yucky -- different eyes may have a different view, of course.Can something be done in coloring the charts in order to identify the direct compared products?
It's understandable when you only review one product, but not when direct comparing two items and only one it's highlighted.It gets very messy, very quickly, when multiple colours are used to track different vendors/models. I experimented with alternating AMD/Intel colours and found it to be pretty yucky -- different eyes may have a different view, of course.
And if you look at 12 games average table the 6 core still beats the 14 core.14 core CPU vs 6 core CPU... lol
For the author, food for thought. I am not sure that the idea of a 12 game average of FPS is statistically appropriate in how you compare the two processors. It gives an artificial and unequal weighting to the games that score 500 FPS vs. the ones that score closer to 100 FPS. I think that normalizing the FPS relative to the highest FPS for each game (max score per game is 1.0) and then averaging them would be a much better measurement across multiple games. That way you are looking at the relative % difference in performance.
My two cents to help improve an already great review. Keep up the good work.
I believe you meant 2600K, which yeah, the 2500K and 2600K were absolute beasts for their time.As enticing as the AM5 platform is, if we were building a new PC today, for either gaming or work, we'd be going with the Core i5-13600K, it's the obvious choice, just as the 12600K was when we reviewed it back in late 2012.
This is why the geometric, not arithmetic, mean is used to calculate the averages. The former is less sensitive to additive outliers than the former.I am not sure that the idea of a 12 game average of FPS is statistically appropriate in how you compare the two processors. It gives an artificial and unequal weighting to the games that score 500 FPS vs. the ones that score closer to 100 FPS.
Could we finally get some colours for these comparisons? The article is about comparing 2 CPUs, but only Intel's is highlighted in orange, leaving the reader to skim through the entire chart looking for the AMD CPU. On every chart!
This is a very minor point given the great article, but let me try a bit more. I just see it as an apples and oranges comparison when using FPS across different games. The absolute FPS in one game is not really comparable to the FPS in another game. You can't accurately compare the idea that one CPU can achieve 50 more FPS in a game that has a max of 400 FPS to that same 50 FPS differential in a game that max's out at 100 FPS. Thus, the idea of averaging them together just does not work IMO. I get that saying FPS is "simple" but I just don't think it is accurate.I've often thought the same thing when reading Steve or Tim's work. However, there are generally only 1 or 2 extreme outliers (CS:GO is by far the worst). So... my 2 cents: normalizing the data would only make it more difficult for those guys without making any significant impact on their analysis. Even the small things (like adding an extra equation) could significantly increase the work they need to do prior to big launches.
IMO, it just makes more sense to get rid of the obvious outliers. But, once again, CS:GO is an outlier in more than one way.
Thanks for the feedback. It is not clear in your article that is how you do it. It just states "average." I am sure your approach suitably meets the needs of the article and my argument is pedantic. I still like the normalization approach, but cheers for your use of the geometric mean.This is why the geometric, not arithmetic, mean is used to calculate the averages. The former is less sensitive to additive outliers than the former.